to be annoyed by the treaury response to enquiry about fairness of child benefit removal?

[grumpypants]

I have now come to terms with higher income families losing CB. But this isn't what's happening - it is higher income earners so we all know the inequality of that. Basic maths etc.
So, anyway, my mum wrote to her MP to see how they could justify (in this new, fair world) letting two people keep it on £30 each but not one person on £50 say.
Two sides of political waffle about 'fairness' and the big mess left to them and the argument is essentially:

1. they don't want to set up a new means testing system (makes no sense - just add it to exisiting tax credits one?)
   
2. means testing CB would fundamentally chnage it's nature. (makes no sense - removing its universality is a fundamental change, no?)
   
3. 'higher rate tax payers are better off' - doesn't say than who.
   
   So anyway, not much logical reasoning there.

[DaisySteiner]

Totally ridiculous situation here, where we have a household income over 50K (most of this from one higher rate tax payer) and yet because of the idiosyncratic way in which child tax credits are calculated we get about 1K a year from them (no childcare element, and yes, does take into account the changes from this April, I've worked that out) On the other hand we will lose our child benefit in 2012. Bizarre.

[DaisySteiner]

Oh, and if you ask me, the reason they don't want to introduce a means testing system for CB is because they intend to get rid of it entirely in the next few years, so would be a waste of money. Either that or they're stupid

[Jacanne]

I have heard the point about the husband having to fill something in on his tax return but not all higher rate tax payers complete a tax return. My DH is still PAYE.

[Gottakeepchanging]

Jacanne. He should check that he is getting all reliefs then

Does he have a pension
Do you gift aid to charity (even if you just go into the zoo and do it etc)
Does he work from home

[vickibee]

From April the threshold at which 40 % tax is paid is being reduced to accommodate the £1000 increase in personal allowance for basic rate tax payers. Therefore a lot more people will be affected by this. If you are on the threshold I understand that salary sacrifces of addtional pension contributions can be sufficient to take you back below the threshold and so keep CB.

[lesley33]

I am a higher rate tax payer and on paye.

I agree with the changes in CB. The argument for CB beinga universal benefit was that in the past less women worked and in many families the man held the purse strings. CB was paid as a universal benefit to the mother to directly benefit the children and give her a small bit of money that she had total control over.

I am old enough to remember previous discussions about removing CB as a universal benefit. The argument above could be heard in newspapers, the radio and tv.

However, families and the posuition of women has drastically changed. The above argument is now very out of date. With that argument removed, CB becomes just another benefit. So I don't think we should be giving money to people who earn significantly above the national average wage. Benefits should be for people who are struggling - low waged, disabled, ill and unemployed.

I can also understand why they are administering it in the way they are. Working out who is entitled to CB by looking at household income is expensive and would take away many of the savings being made by axing CB to some. Doesn't seem fair, but pragmatically makes sense.

[tyler80]

Are people saying higher tax payers should continue to get child benefit or people with household income above a certain level should lose it?

[DaisySteiner]

I think people are saying that it would be fairer to assess it on household income, and whether some hrt payers continue to get it will depend on where they set the cut-off. This is certainly the way I think they should do it - and as the proposals stand we will probably get round them by paying larger amounts into dh's pension, so it's not self-interest that motivates me to say that!

[grumpypants]

tbh, i think that everybody with children should get it - family circumstances can change so much, and having a guaranteed amount is a tiny safety net.

[nobodyimportant]

As a SAHM my concern really is for the Home Responsibilities Protection. We can manage without the CB and I don't begrudge giving that up when times are tight for everyone. But I am worried about my pension. Ironically enough my DH's well paid job would become untenable if I were to work full time too so we would probably both end up earning under the threshold although the total income might be similar. I guess I'll end up having to make voluntary NI contributions or something.

[JBellingham]

I think the main reason it is being done the way it is, is for ease of implementation, nothing to do with 'fairness' (a very subjective term).

Select all the people who get child benefit and who earn over a certain threshold and remove their entitlement.

It's a doddle to do compared to...

Send out forms to ask everyone in your household for their income, get forms back, enter data, add it all up, check if they meet the threshold, listen to the complaints beacuse they forgot to exclude little Timmy's trumpet lessons etc etc. Send the same form out when something changes...

Means tested benefits (or removal of) are a pain in the arse to set up and administer and of course costly.

[grumpypants]

but the tax credits system is already in place and means testing people!
and i can get fairness but not garbage like 'higher rate tax payers are better off'

[NotAnotherNewNappy]

YANBU - It is completely unfair to lone parents, most of whom are women, but this government simply does not care about that.

DP and I both work for the same organisation - him FT, me PT, so we only have to pay 3 days childcare. We bring home approx 50k between us but will get to keep our child benefit.

Our friend is a lone parent, works full time and therefore has to pay 5 days of childcare. She earns just above the threshhold (45k) and will lose her child benefit. So not only are her outgoings more, she will also lose the extra help she currently recieves. She is going to go PT as it no longer makes financial sense for her to work full time.

The tories are pushing women out of the workplace.

[Jojocat]

not another new nappy - I agree with most of your post. However I would say the tories are pushing women in to the work place. At the moment some people still have the choice of staying at home to look after their children while they are young if their spouse earns enough for the family to live on one income. Taking away child benefit leads to a loss in disposable income and so more women will find they have to return to work while their children are babies because they cannot afford to take a career break for a few years.

I have no problem with people deciding to work when their children are very young but I object to people being forced to work and leave their children in child care, which is happening as a result of first labour government policy and now coalition policy.

[bemybebe]

I do not get it. Whichever way you cut, there is always going to be someone who will be 'unfairly' excluded? What is so 'fair' about taking the CB from the 100K earner who has 10 children as opposed to someone on 30K with one? The only 'fair' (hate this word!) benefit is all or none at all. As we cannot afford to give away money to all, it should be abolished completely... if so called 'fairness' is the objective.

[electra]

Another crazy, half-baked policy the tories have come up with. They really are a bunch of wankers

[bemybebe]

electra Yeah, your statement is especially relevant in the context of super wise labour policies that left us with a wonderful budget surplus. Do you actually follow what has been going on? Maybe it is time for a refresher course in economics?

[scaryteacher]

'No. They will ask a question on his tax return if he has children. They will then ask if he receives benefit. If he says yes it will be taxed. If he says no they will check and then apparently chase it up.'

Caveat here - dh is HRT payer, but the CB benefit claimant is me, not him. He does not receive the benefit, I do, so how is that going to work, as I earn under the tax threshold?

[grumpypants]

i think the idea was to put a box on the tax return to ask if anyone in the household claimed CB. I am waiting my own response from the Treasury with a comprehensive set of questions....

[Gottakeepchanging]

Scaryteacher. That is the whole dilemma about why people think the system they suggested won't work. And what about estranged couples, unmarried couples etc. David c response was that he hopes that higher rate tax payers will stop claiming it- but they can't be stopped as it stands.

That's why it is so silly. I shall carry on claiming and then pay it back. Interest free loan

[EricNorthmansMistress]

Exactly Scaryteacher - it's either a single claim, in which case they can whistle if they expect people to hand over partner's income details, or it's a joint claim, in which case it has to be done on joint income, rather than income of higher earner.

They can't legally oblige one parent to disclose earnings of their partner if the CB claim remains in the sole name of the lower earning parent

Either it's a joint claim, in which case joint income, or it's a single claim, in which case they have no legal leg to stand on by asking for anyone else's income details!

Twats.

[vj32]

Child Benefit is a benefit. Can anyone really argue that a family earning over £40k NEEDS state help?

[MumSecret]

I thought CB was claimed by a single person, not by the family?

So even if 1 person earns over 50k, the other person can claim the benefit, no?

[EricNorthmansMistress]

Mumsecret

see my post two above yours - yes, the other person can claim the benefit, because the govt can't legally compel the non/low earner to hand over details of the income of someone unrelated to the claim. Or they can make it a joint claim, in which case they have to assess it on joint income.